Why the King James Version

[Brother Ben]

From time to time I think it is necessary to reinforce fundamental cornerstones. In a recent conversation with a dear brother, I was asked if my stand on the King James Version was academic or did I have a scriptural reason. Actually I have both, but ultimately the one that is the most important is the scriptural. I hope to share some insights as to why this is such an important issue for the English speaking people.

Why is the English language so important? I believe in his sovereignty, the Lord knew the impact the English speaking people would have on the entire globe. I heard just yesterday five African nations voted English as their national language. English is the international business language and most countries teach it to the school children because of this.

Some ask, "What about the Thee's and Thou's?" to whcih I reply, "My small children understand it, why don't you?" It really is not about Elisabethan English, but is God a man of his word? Let's lay a little foundation:

Exd 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Deu 32:4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

Hbr 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

So we see that God is a God of truth, he is able to do what he said he would do, and it is impossible for him to lie. If these things be true, then consider the impact of the following verses.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Here we see the foundation of the purity of God's word and the fact that he would preserve it for ever. It is only logical to think that God would preserve his word pure.

Psa 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psa 119:140 Thy word [is] very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Pro 30:5 ¶ Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

The important thing to observe in the last three verses is that God is concerned with the very words. He said we need every word which proceeds out of Gods mouth. He goes on to express the importance of the jots and tittles which were the pronuciation marks of Hebrew text. Aslo, he said even though heaven and earth would pass away, Gods, words, plural, denoting the importance of each one, would never pass away.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Hear, notice that the word of God is incorruptible. Yes, man may make his versions and perversions, but the pure, preserved word of God is not capable of being taken away, it endureth forever.

This is the scriptural basis for believing in the importance of the the King James Bible.

I'll post more on this later.

Bro. Ben

[Brother Ben]

Why The King James Version

Another aspect of the King James Version is based on the following verse:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

It is important to note that the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth. When we look into the families of manuscripts from whence we get our different version we basically have two lines: The Critical Text and The Received Text.

The Critical Text finds its origin in the works of Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. You can learn more here. Wescott and Hort and strong allegiance to Roman Catholicism and it's texts.

The Antiochian Text also known as the Byzantine Text. This text was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 just prior to the Reformation. The more Erasmus became involved in the study and editing of the New Testament, the more his theology and convictions began to change. He came to reject the typical Roman Catholic interpretation of Matt. 16:18 establishing papal primacy. He began to vehemently attack the abuses and scandals of the Roman Catholic clergy, particularly as they violated their vows of celibacy. He even attacked celibacy as fallacious.

These Antiochian or Byzantine texts were gathered in the area of the original churches started by the Apostle Paul. If you know anything about geography these churches were started in the land we now know as Turkey which was the cradle for the Byzantine Empire.

Here in the birthplace of the Pauline Epistles, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, etc., is where these texts had been carefully copied and kept by the churches of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Even the Old Testament was ill-affected by the Critical Text. The Hebrew Text was originally kept by a strict order of Jews known as the Masorah. This sect took painstaking efforts to keep the Hebrew Text pure and absolutely free of error. Remember, they had the assistance of God:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Sadly, Wescott and Hort opted for the very corrupt text that was found by the archaeologist, Tischendorf. This manuscript was found in the "trash heap" outside of St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai. Obviously influenced by Catholicism, these manuscripts had multitudes of problems. In fact, the Vaticanus, made and found in the Vatican, and the Siniaticus differed 3000 times in the four Gospels alone. The obvious superior text was that of the Jews.

So we can see that the Received Text or Textus Receptus, as it is sometimes called, was a stretch of the Pure River from which we got a pure King James Version.

More later.

Bro. Ben

[Brother Ben]

In this third installment I want to comment on the fact that God does not need a clear family of manuscripts to preserve his word, pure. The case in point is I John 5:7 known to some as the Johannine Comma.

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

When Erasamus collected the manuscripte evidence for the Textus Receptus, there was no witness in the Greek Byzantine text for the Comma.

However, suprisingly in the Latin translations that were used to make the Critical Texts, the Comma made very strong presence. One might question if it should be included, but here is the important thing to make note of; the early church fathers were using this verse prior to the Latin translations or the spreading of the Byzantine text.

The King James Bible Page states:

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed. [3]

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." [5]

[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles.

[4] Treatises 1 5:423.

[5] Liber Apologeticus.

Another lengthy, but excellent article on this topic can be read on the John William Burgon
Institute for Study of Ancient
Manuscripts, Texts and Papyri site.

The point I'm making again is the preservation of the scriptures in a pure state is promised by God and he can work around the shortcomings of human limitations. God is not controled by man's ability to maintain a copy of manuscripts since he is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

More later.

[Brother Ben]

As I continue to comment on why the King James Version issue is important, I am often asked what are my feelings about the New King James Version. As I think I have stated, I am a Textus Receptus man and any version that comes from that is a good translation. For us who speak the English language, that would be the Tyndale, the Geneva, or the more commonly and widely accepted Athorized Version of 1611, the KJV. I do not have a problem with the Geneva or the Tyndale, but the one that God's seems to have put his stamp of approval on is the KJV.

So what of the NKJV? Some say, all they did was update the language and take away the "thees and the thous." If this was the case, it might not be so bad, but it is not the only change. When the original group got together to make the NKJV they also decided to check the Textus Receptus (TR) up against the Wescott Hort translation as held up in the works of Nestle-Aland's, Novum Testamentum Graece (N), and the United Bible Society’s third edition (U).

Most modern English translations of the Bible are based on the text that is found in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Society’s third edition (U). This text is often referred to as the NU-Text.

So to be fair and honest, the NKJV is not a pure revision of the KJV text, but is a hybrid and, important here, is NOT a KJV at all. To call the NKJV the "New" King James Version is deceptive and many do not do the research to see what texts were used to support the work.

When reading the NKJV you will often find a footnote that says something to this affect:

*This verse does not appear in the NU text.

So, when the unknowing reader comes across that note, what is he to think?

Is this verse the word of God or the word of man?
How much of the "bible" has been tampered with?
How much of this can I truely trust?

As you see this opens up a Pandora's Box.

More later.

Ben

[George]

Thank you for posting that Brother Ben. I have one word for the NKJV, "abomination."

In Christ,
George